Foucault You.

It is important to clarify one thing unequivocally, up front, and without delay. At no point is the goal of this project to say "it's all men's fault. I am therefore going to go watch Beaches and eat chocolate in my pink bunny slippers." I do not, in fact, have bunny slippers.[1] Although males do have their role in the subject social dynamic, to say that the specter of the unattainable ideal woman is something foisted upon defenseless females is not only disempowering, it's silly. I have never been told by a male in my life "you're too fat" or "you really should make more handcrafted items" or "I will really think less of you if you don't learn French." I have never met a man who cared whether I ate more vegetables, drank green tea (high in antioxidants, tastes like elephants), or grew my own organic herb garden. That, almost hilariously, is the point: the individual participants in the patriarchy do not, on a conscious level, care. So why do we?

Take Foucault (please!). In his book Discipline and Punish (1977), he analyzes the transition from "torture" (see, being drawn and quartered in the town square) under the monarchical system of government, to "discipline," in which, essentially the punishment is internalized and torture unnecessary (see, modern prisons). In short, repression of the populace through overt displays of brutality vice self-policing of a well behaved populace. Corporal punishment, he argues, is "inconsistent with the modern desire to be refined and enlightened."

Compare this, then, to the loosening legal restrictions on women's rights. Women in the American colonies could not hold property (subject to some exceptions), nor vote, nor seek divorce or reproductive choice.  Subjugation of women was legally codified, and can be analogized to the "overt violence" of Foucault's monarchical punishment. But codified subjugation of a given group is inconsistent with the egalitarian ideals of the modern era. As such, while legal restrictions were lifted, inequality was internalized. That is, if modern women have on a subconscious level internalized the idea that we are "less than," it would only make sense that we are always striving to be "more." The "more," then, is the unattainable modern "equal."

So, let's go from burning the witch (she weighs the same as a duck), i.e. overt violence, to symbolic violence.  "Symbolic violence… is a violence exercised in formal terms."  (Bordieu, 1990, 84-85) Formal, the way it is used in this context, means "universal," or "official" and thus seemingly neutral. It is the neutrality in this case that is the kicker. Seemingly neutral indicators of success in the workplace: ambition, decisiveness, rationality- are highly gendered with regard to their traditional association as male or female characteristics. We enter the workplace every day and, in order to succeed, emulate these male characteristics. In a journey to be "equal" we actually attempt to be "male," (i.e. exhibit the characteristics which are assumed to be neutrally better) a feat at which we are destined to fail.

So, Foucault you.

Works Cited:

Bourdieu, P. 1990. In Other Words. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.

---

[1] They're sock monkeys.